I think you are either trolling or you fundamentally don't understand, what you're talking about.
Nothing is obfuscated. You can download each and every code file, audit it, and build the binaries from exactly that code. You can even compare the binaries to the ones provided by major distros thanks to reproducible builds.
Just because you don't understand code, doesn't mean it's obfuscated. Following that logic, even a loaf of bread is "obfuscated" because you don't understand sour dough.
Some people have way too much time and way too disturbing world views to be allowed on the Internet.
And how many people do you think could accurately, or even ballpark, estimate their workload? I couldn't tell you, whether my workload would benefit from more e or p cores and by how much.
What you're implying here is an illusion of accuracy. You want accurate numbers for something that you can't really judge anyway. These numbers don't mean anything to you, they just give you the illusion of knowing what's going on. It's the "close door" button in an elevator.
For example being able to get a grasp of the rough performance from the have.
i5 10500 is faster than i5 10400. But is 6p4e better than 4p8e?
It's illusionary to fit everything about a CPU into its name. What you're proposing is essentially the entire value column of the spec sheet concatenated.
Isn't that true for almost all of pop music? It's intended to be aggressively meh.
The reality is, that hardly any projects actually need or benefit from micro services.
Most applications would scale just fine as a monolith, micro services seem to be rather an organizational tool to separate modules, because you can't come up with a proper architecture.
You really think, that is more readable?
The number behind Ultra is pretty much the same as with the i$x scheme. 3 is entry, 5 is mid range, 7 is high end, 9 is bad decision making.
The number after that kind of works like before. So higher number means more better. Probably with an extension for coming generation. Remember, the first i5s had 4 digit names as well, the fourth digit was prepended to indicate generations.
Thing is, there's no really good naming scheme, because there are so many possible variants/dimensions. Base clock, turbo clock, TDP, P core count, E core count, PCIe lanes, socket, generation ,..... How would you encode that in a readable name?
But with an actually tablet worthy screen section.
Ideally, you'd have an ARM CPU and a decent battery in the screen section, and a dedicated GPU plus proper battery in the bottom section.
... barely because they contain enough botox to wipe out a small nation?
That's actually how the comment above interpreted the ellipses. The difference is more, why the words are missing.
The "modern" interpretation is that you are too annoyed or afraid to finish the sentence. In the sense of "son of a ...." in case of annoyance.
The "old" interpretation is either temporal (I'm not finished writing) or simply an acknowledgement that the fragment is just a fragment.
So the modern reader will interpret much more context into the missing words, leading to the exchange above.
I think you don't quite understand the comment.
Current pharmaceuticals are usually a (life)long prescription. It's not like antibiotics, where you get a dose for a few days or weeks and you're done. Antidepressants have to be taken for years. Every day. That means revenue every day. It's a treatment, not a cure.
MDMA on the other hand is a (potential) cure. You take it a few times under supervision and that's it.
Problem is, this takes away customers from the former group. And that means, far less revenue from "traditional" psychopharmacology products. MDMA cannibalizes other drugs.